On Wed, Feb 09, 2011 at 11:54:11AM -0800, Dave Hansen wrote:
> @@ -385,8 +387,16 @@ static int smaps_pte_range(pmd_t *pmd, u
> pte_t *pte;
> spinlock_t *ptl;
>
> - split_huge_page_pmd(walk->mm, pmd);
> -
> + if (pmd_trans_huge(*pmd)) {
> + if (pmd_trans_splitting(*pmd)) {
> + spin_unlock(&walk->mm->page_table_lock);
> + wait_split_huge_page(vma->anon_vma, pmd);
> + spin_lock(&walk->mm->page_table_lock);
the locking looks wrong, who is taking the &walk->mm->page_table_lock,
and isn't this going to deadlock on the pte_offset_map_lock for
NR_CPUS < 4, and where is it released? This spin_lock don't seem
necessary to me.
The right locking would be:
spin_lock(&walk->mm->page_table_lock);
if (pmd_trans_huge(*pmd)) {
if (pmd_trans_splitting(*pmd)) {
spin_unlock(&walk->mm->page_table_lock);
wait_split_huge_page(vma->anon_vma, pmd);
} else {
smaps_pte_entry(*(pte_t *)pmd, addr, HPAGE_SIZE, walk);
spin_unlock(&walk->mm->page_table_lock);
return 0;
}
I think it worked because you never run into a pmd_trans_splitting pmd
yet, and you were running smaps_pte_entry lockless which could race
against split_huge_page (but it normally doesn't).
> + } else {
> + smaps_pte_entry(*(pte_t *)pmd, addr, HPAGE_SIZE, walk);
> + return 0;
> + }
> + }
> pte = pte_offset_map_lock(vma->vm_mm, pmd, addr, &ptl);
> for (; addr != end; pte++, addr += PAGE_SIZE)
> smaps_pte_entry(*pte, addr, PAGE_SIZE, walk);
> _
>
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>